Sujet : Re: "A diagram of C23 basic types"
De : bc (at) *nospam* freeuk.com (bart)
Groupes : comp.lang.cDate : 02. Apr 2025, 16:38:03
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vsjlkq$230a5$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 02/04/2025 16:26,
Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
On Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:59:45 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:
On 02/04/2025 16:05, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
I suspect the people who are happy with C never have any correspondence with
anyone from the committee so they get an entirely biased sample. Just like
its usually only people who had a bad experience that fill in "How did we do"
>
surveys.
>
And I suspect that you haven't a clue who the C standards committee talk
to - and who those people in turn have asked.
By imference you do - so who are they?
11. nullptr for clarity and safety.
Never understood that in C++ never mind C. NULL has worked fine for 50 years.
And it's been a hack for 50 years. Especially when it is just:
#define NULL 0
You also need to include some header (which one?) in order to use it. I'd hope you wouldn't need to do that for nullptr, but backwards compatibility may require it (because of any forward-thinking individuals who have already defined their own 'nullptr').
…